THE ISSUE: ABUSE OF THE PROPHET
MUSLIMS in general believe that, judging by the Islamic shariah—religious law, the punishment for one who abuses the Prophet should be death. If you ask them to substantiate this claim, they will immediately refer to Fiqh Islamic jurisprudence. They will say that it is an accepted ordinance in Islamic Fiqh that anyone held to have been abusing the Prophet should be executed.
This kind of reference in itself is baseless. For killing a person comes under capital punishment and a law of this nature has to be derived directly from the Quran and Hadith, the source books in Islam, rather than from some discipline developed later on the basis of interpretation. It is an established fact that in Islam only the Quran and Hadith hold the position of authentic sources. No third source is legally tenable. So far as fiqh is concerned, it is totally based on Qayas (inference). And inferences made by the scholars can never be an accepted source in any law.
It is an established fact that in Islam only the Quran and Hadith hold the position of authentic sources. No third source is legally tenable.
The issue of shatm-ar-rasul (abuse of the Prophet) has been discussed in the books of law and a number of books have been written exclusively on this subject. Some of these are:
Al-Sarimul-Maslul ‘ala Shatimir-Rasul
by Taqiuddin Ahmad Ibn Taimiyya (1328).
Al-Saiful-Maslul ‘ala man Sabbar-Rasul
by Taqiuddin Abul-Hasan ‘Ali bin ‘Abdul-Kafi Al-Subuki (1355).
Tambihul-wulat Wal-Hukkam ‘ala Akahmi Shatimi Khairil-Anam
by S. Muhammad Amin bin ‘Umar al-Shami (1836).
But all these and other such books written on the subject carry no valid reference from the Quran and Hadith. The first question to be asked in this regard is: which verse of the Quran gives this injunction to kill the abuser of the Prophet? In all the chapters of the Quran with all of their hundreds of verses, there is not a single verse which gives the command to kill an abuser of the Prophet.
Those who support this concept cite certain verses of the Quran, but these are totally irrelevant to the issue concerned. For instance, Ibn Taimiyya quotes in his book, Al-Sarimul-Maslul ‘ala Shatimir-Rasul certain verses, one of which is:
Those who annoy God’s messenger will have a woeful punishment.
THE QURAN 9: 61
The Quran and Hadith have not given any command to kill an abuser of the Prophet.
The ‘woeful punishment’ mentioned in this verse of the Quran clearly refers to the punishment in the life after death, rather than punishment in this world. It is irrational to fail to differentiate between killing in this world and punishment in the next world. Punishment in this world is the result of a sentence pronounced in a human court, whereas punishment in the next life will result directly from the divine verdict.
These punishments differ entirely from one another in nature. The argument that a Quranic verse equates retribution in the after-life with punishment in this world is totally without logic.
The second source of Islamic Shariah is the Hadith or the sayings and deeds of the Prophet. But those who advocate executing the command to kill any abuser of the Prophet will not find a single line to support their argument. They might establish their stand if they could quote a tradition of the Prophet which clearly says, ‘Anyone who abuses your Prophet should be killed.’ But we can say with certainty that in the whole body of Hadith literature, no such authentic tradition has been recorded by anyone.
Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Az Zahbi (d. 1348) wrote, ‘A Hadith which is not known to Ibn Taimiyya is not an authentic Hadith.’ But even Ibn Taimiyya, renowned as a great religious scholar, failed to present an authentic Hadith to this effect. In his book he quotes a tradition, the authenticity of which he is not quite certain. Its wording is as follows, ‘Anyone who abuses any of the prophets should be killed.’ Ibn Taimiyya himself wrote of this Hadith that it was possibly fabricated, and that only if its authenticity were proved, could it serve as an argument that abusers of the prophets should be killed.
Now even 700 years after the publication of Ibn Taimiyya’s book, no scholar has yet written about the source and authenticity of this tradition. In such a case it can be concluded with certainty that it is a fabricated Hadith. And a fabricated Hadith is worthless.
The above argument makes it clear that the Quran and Hadith have not given any command to kill an abuser of the Prophet.
According to a tradition, a poet belonging to a polytheistic tribe once came to the Prophet Muhammad in Madinah in order to express his thoughts on polytheism. This he did in the form of couplets. Before the age of the press, people generally gave expression to their thoughts in poetry. That is to say, poetry enjoyed the position of the media in those times. At that time in order to counter the poet, the Prophet sent for Hassan ibn Thabit, also a poet. When Hassan came to the Prophet, he said to him, ‘Hassan, rise and answer this man.’ Then Hassan stood up and answered him likewise, in the form of couplets.
Retaliating against the pen with the sword is not the way of Islam.
We find many such incidents in the life of the Prophet. This shows that if anyone says anything against Islam or the Prophet, the counter action will be at an equal level, that is, word for word and writing for writing. This shows that retaliating against the pen with the sword is not the way of Islam. Any such incident relating to the use of the pen against Islam is for Muslims an intellectual challenge: it is in no way an armed or violent challenge. On such occasions, the opposite party has to be satisfied with reasoning and arguments in peaceful ways. Satisfying the other party at an intellectual level must be the rule. Whereas, responding by resorting to violence can never be justified.